Whats your strategy for year 2030 / ban of ICE vehicles?

[Big Janner]

I think hydrogen will succeed in buses trucks and ships etc. While it obviously works in cars I think it's dead in the water regarding large scale production. Much too expensive and the infrastructure is many years behind EV charging. By the time a hydrogen car achieves reasonable costs the EV's will be cheaper still. It's a VHS vs Betmax type of thing. EV's are too well established already even if hydrogen is a better solution.

I get that
The problem is, battery is just not a solution.
It's very much a quick political fix, to prove that the UK is doing it's bit
EV is creating problems and cost for our children

As for HC not being a solutuon for cars; you are right in saying that EV's infrastrucure is much more advanced, but, this doesn't rectify the problems:
- Environmental damage being done in mining battery components
- Charging away from home
- Battery recycling

As for hydrogen being expensive; I believe that that is just an excuse
Look at every invention or development
At first always expensive
My 1st flat panel TV was over £2000 back in the 90's
Now, you get them free with your cornflakes
Ford were giving mobile phones away with cars

We CAN crack the hydrogen problem, if we want to, it's invention and development.
Make producing cheap, clean hydrogen profitable and someone will come up with a solution, they always do.

I have faith in our scientists and our entrepreneurs

 

[markjay]

I get that
The problem is, battery is just not a solution.
It's very much a quick political fix, to prove that the UK is doing it's bit
EV is creating problems and cost for our children

As for HC not being a solutuon for cars; you are right in saying that EV's infrastrucure is much more advanced, but, this doesn't rectify the problems:
- Environmental damage being done in mining battery components
- Charging away from home
- Battery recycling

As for hydrogen being expensive; I believe that that is just an excuse
Look at every invention or development
At first always expensive
My 1st flat panel TV was over £2000 back in the 90's
Now, you get them free with your cornflakes
Ford were giving mobile phones away with cars

We CAN crack the hydrogen problem, if we want to, it's invention and development.
Make producing cheap, clean hydrogen profitable and someone will come up with a solution, they always do.

I have faith in our scientists and our entrepreneurs

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Disclaimer:

I don't know enough about Hydrogen fuel to pass judgement on whether he has a point or talking total bull. All I can say is that his arguments do sound compelling, but then he's quite an opinionated chap in general, and opinionated people do tend to have compelling-sounding arguments....

Nevertheless, it's an interesting clip (I thought).

 

[clk320x]

I don't think it is. I suspect that typically EV's will get through 2 sets of batteries in their life cycle.
I know my sisters partner is just about to have his 7 year old batteries replaced in his Tesla...under warranty!
So if the second set of batteries is taken in to consideration, does that wipe out any 'eco' benefit the EV has?
Don't get me started on the 'benefits' of carrying half a ton of 'fuel' around for the life mileage of the car....

Perhaps I'm being a little unfair. I does keep the centre of gravity low!

Warranty replacement backs are ‘refurb’ anyway.. so it’s basically another ‘faulty’ pack which has had the faulty module replaced.

They won’t need to replace full packs once EVs become mainstream. Instead they’ll just replace the individual cells.

 

[Fununcle]

Someone needs to find the gonads to stand up and sell hydrogen cell as a concept.

Off you go then

 

[Wolfie1]

I read that out of all the green houses produced in a year 95% of them are naturally occurring and the remaining 5% is man made, so i dont understand how banning all fuel powered vehicles is supposed to help anybody!

 

[Dickster]

Not great photos, might start a thread in the defectors section when I take better ones.

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.

imgur.com

imgur.com

Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.

imgur.com

Very nice

 

[Dickster]

I read that out of all the green houses produced in a year 95% of them are naturally occurring and the remaining 5% is man made, so i dont understand how banning all fuel powered vehicles is supposed to help anybody!

No, but it will line a lot of pockets.

 

[Diesel Benz]

I read that out of all the green houses produced in a year 95% of them are naturally occurring and the remaining 5% is man made, so i dont understand how banning all fuel powered vehicles is supposed to help anybody!

I did not try to verify your figures but 5% indeed does not sound a lot. 5% should not matter much, like quit breathing for a day and a half once a month.

Obviously my point is: who says where 5% is a lot or nothing. If forests etc. can handle the "natural" part but not more, the 5% accumulates quite a lot before our children are gone!

 

[Tonye]

I'm not to worried about it, we will be absorbed by the sun in a few years

 

[DrNick]

I read that out of all the green houses produced in a year 95% of them are naturally occurring and the remaining 5% is man made, so i dont understand how banning all fuel powered vehicles is supposed to help anybody!

Doesn't carbon dioxide in the atmosphere come from natural sources?

Yes, there are, but the only new process on Earth that has been identified that can account for the significant tipping of Earth's carbon balance is human activity, including deforestation, biomass burning, cement production, and—especially—fossil-fuel emissions.

www.climate.gov

I think we can see the trend here nicely. The increase (from many sources, including some "natural") is due to man's efforts. Whatever the detail, avoiding putting any more CO2 into the atmosphere is a good idea.

if we are not careful, the "natural" emissions will trigger themselves and then we are in trouble. For example there is a lot of methane ( a greenhouse gas far worse than CO2) trapped in the permafrosts. That is starting to melt and so the methane gets out. Is this then a natural emission? It doesn't matter -its still an emission driven by climate change, triggered by man. Of course, methane then breaks down into CO2...

There is very little room to argue, and why would you? What can possibly be bad about protecting the environment? How we go about doing it is the only real question, and the answer is to do as much as you can as soon as you can by whatever means is available to you. Its not an overnight thing but some decisions need to be made even if they need to be changed or adapted later. I see it as both an individual thing and a governmental thing, but individuals drive government and change.

Decarbonise the grid and do/use less of everything is fundamentally how I see it. Todays price rises for energy should be focusing the mind a bit!

 

[ChipChop]

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Humans and animals exhale it and plants inhale it. You want to do your bit for the environment? Get an allotment or take up gardening.

 

[DrNick]

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Humans and animals exhale it and plants inhale it. You want to do your bit for the environment? Get an allotment or take up gardening.

Anything is a pollutant if there's too much in the wrong place. Even things like fertilizers, when they end up in the rivers (which they do) lead to algae blooms and dead fish.

Definition:

A pollutant is a substance that is present in concentrations that may harm organisms (humans, plants and animals) or exceed an environmental quality standard. The term is frequently used synonymously with contaminant.

 

[ChipChop]

Anything is a pollutant if there's too much in the wrong place. Even things like fertilizers, when they end up in the rivers (which they do) lead to algae blooms and dead fish.

Definition:

A pollutant is a substance that is present in concentrations that may harm organisms (humans, plants and animals) or exceed an environmental quality standard. The term is frequently used synonymously with contaminant.

If you think there is too much carbon dioxide then you can plant something that inhales it. A pragmatic solution.

Switching from ICE to an EV only creates another set of means of production issues to conflate.

 

[DrNick]

If you think there is too much carbon dioxide then you can plant something that inhales it. A pragmatic solution.

Switching from ICE to an EV only creates another set of means of production issues to conflate.

I agree, planting new stuff is part of the solution probably. But we need to stop chopping down the current trees as well or we are in a zero sum game.

We need to move away from burning stuff in general. EVs appear to be part of that solution for the foreseeable future. They may introduce other issues. There is no easy answer.

 

[Benzowner]

More scientists supporting vegan way of life 21,000 Scientists Want You to Ditch Meat for the Planet which to a point I can see, interested to see what other think. It is one way to reduce CO2 levels, but can we grow enough to replace meat and all of its other benefits such as milk. eggs etc

 

[Bellow]

More scientists supporting vegan way of life 21,000 Scientists Want You to Ditch Meat for the Planet which to a point I can see, interested to see what other think. It is one way to reduce CO2 levels, but can we grow enough to replace meat and all of its other benefits such as milk. eggs etc

Yes - with land to spare. Lots of land spare. Some of which could be used for bio-fuels and allow continued mobility without incurring the massive CO2 footprint incurred with batteries.

 

[Tonye]

For those not in the know, trees and other plants absorb CO2 and convert it into O2 via Photosynthesis by day and release a small amount of CO2 by night.
Maybe the answer is there, a giant bean stalk . I'll have a chat with my mate Jack.

Erm, Post #6hundred and something.
It appears we're going around in circles

 

[Tonye]

Nuclear powered steam turbine, 5 million HP with quite a lot of torque

 

[DrNick]

Yes - with land to spare. Lots of land spare. Some of which could be used for bio-fuels and allow continued mobility without incurring the massive CO2 footprint incurred with batteries.

Whether they have a lower carbon footprint than batteries I cant say, but I guess it depends how much you use over the lifetime of both. I would love there to be an easy answer, but there isn't.

Note the bit about food demand increasing. Land might not be the problem but water will be. I can provide figures on that as well if you want, but its all out there if you look.

 

[markjay]

I read that out of all the green houses produced in a year 95% of them are naturally occurring and the remaining 5% is man made, so i dont understand how banning all fuel powered vehicles is supposed to help anybody!

It won't.

Pretty much the only environmental benefit of zero exhasut emission vehicles is that they remove harmful toxic fumes away from urban areas where the majority of people work and live.

But building a new car and shipping it across the globe is just as harmful to the planet, regardless of where it's ICE or EV. And the polluting petroleum industry will be replaced by a polluting battery industry. There are no gains to be had there.

Did I say yet that we should invest in public transport instead of in EV incentives? Public transport should be efficient and affordable, and use of private vehicles should no longer be the norm. If we are to save the planet, that is.